Jharkhand High Court
Rohit Kewat Son Of Prayag Kewat vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1090 of 2013
Rohit Kewat son of Prayag Kewat, resident of Village- Saram,
Kewat Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Gomia, District- Bokaro
... ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
12/26.07.2021 Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, the learned A.P.P.
appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against
the Judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Bokaro, Camp at Tenughat in Criminal Appeal No.
128/2012 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court
upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 494 of the
Indian Penal Code and reduced the quantum of the sentence to
Simple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default in payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
further one month and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, the learned appellate court set aside the conviction
and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 498(A) and 323 of
the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned trial court vide Judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro)
in G.R. No. 566 of 2007 / T.R. No. 333 of 2012 had convicted the
petitioner under Sections 323, 494 and 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
additional imprisonment for two months under Section 494 of
the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for two years
and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo additional imprisonment for two months under
Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioner
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while advancing
his arguments, submitted that the incident is of the year 2007
and much time has elapsed from the date of incident. He
further submitted that as per the records, the petitioner has
remained in jail custody from 12.12.2007 to 24.05.2008 during
trial stage of the case and from 23.01.2014 to at least 07.02.2014
when he was directed to be released on bail by this Court and
thereafter, a few days must have been taken by the petitioner to
furnish the bail bond before the learned court below and as
such, the petitioner has also remained in jail custody for some
period during the pendency of the present criminal revision. He
also submitted that the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount
as imposed by the learned appellate court. The learned counsel
further submitted that considering the aforesaid aspects of the
case, some sympathetic view may be taken and the sentence of
the petitioner may be modified to the period already undergone
by him in judicial custody.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
6. The learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite
Party-State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer
of the petitioner and submitted that the maximum sentence
prescribed under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is 07 years
with fine and the learned appellate court has imposed sentence
of one year only. Accordingly, he submits that the learned
appellate court has already taken a very lenient view in favour
of the petitioner.
7. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that initially the
petitioner took the victim outside the State and solemnized
marriage with her there and as such, the manner, in which the
offence has been committed by the petitioner, does not call for
any sympathetic view of this Court. He also submits that there
is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments calling
for any interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
going through the impugned judgments and the lower court
records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution case is
based on the Complaint No.105/2007 presented by Tilli Devi on
30.03.2007 alleging inter alia that on 18.07.2005, the petitioner
took the Informant to Delhi and subjected her to sexual assault
despite her opposition and assaulted her. Finally, the petitioner
solemnized marriage with her in Shiv Mandir at Muradabad,
U.P. Subsequently, her mother-in-law namely, Chandwa Devi
brought her to her home and kept her properly for 2-3 days.
Thereafter, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and saotan (first
wife of the petitioner) namely, Sangita Devi assaulted her and
made a demand of Rs.50,000/-. Somehow, the Informant went
to her parental house and informed the police, but no step was
taken. On 12.12.2006, a social meeting was held wherein an
agreement was entered in which an undertaking was given for
her proper treatment. But the demand of dowry was resumed
on 28.12.2006, she was assaulted and was driven out from their
house.
9. The Complaint was sent to Gomia P.S. under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. for institution and submission of report and
the case was registered as Gomia P.S. Case No. 75/2007 dated
14.07.2007 under Sections 498(A), 494, 323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioner and Vandana Devi, Prayag
Kewat and Sangita Devi. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498(A), 494 and 323
of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner only and the
other accused persons were found to be innocent. On
29.02.2008, cognizance of the offence was taken against the
petitioner under the same sections.
10. On 19.04.2008, the charges under Sections 498(A), 494 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner
which were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether
four witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 is Tilli Devi who is the
Informant of the case and she exhibited her signature on the
Complaint Petition as Exhibit-1, P.W.-2 is Neelam Devi who is
the mother of the Informant, P.W.-3 is Golu Kewat who is the
father of the Informant and P.W.-4 is Dashrath Kewat.
12. On 09.02.2012, the statements of the petitioner were
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the
incriminating evidences put to him and claimed to be innocent.
The petitioner did not adduce any oral or documentary
evidence in his defence.
13. The learned trial court considered the oral and
documentary evidences and also the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and recorded its findings in Para-12, 13, 14
and 15 of its judgment. The learned trial court in Para-12
recorded that all the prosecution witnesses have consistently
stated that the petitioner used to assault the Informant for
dowry, although no injury report has been produced in court,
nor treatment was provided to the Informant. The learned trial
court further recorded that since the prosecution witnesses in
their evidence have stated that the accused persons used to
assault the Informant due to non-fulfillment of the demand of
dowry, the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code
is proved against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The learned trial court in Para-13 recorded that so far as
the charge under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioner is concerned, P.W.-1 stated that after coming to
her sasural, she came to know that her husband had already
married one year ago and P.W.-3 in his examination-in-chief
has stated that the first marriage of the petitioner was
solemnized with Sangita Devi and concealing the same, he
solemnized second marriage with the Informant. P.W.-4 in his
cross-examination has stated that the petitioner has two wives
and the name of his first wife is Sangita Devi who has two
children and he had attended the first marriage of the
petitioner. The learned trial court further recorded that these
facts establish that the petitioner solemnized second marriage
with the Informant during the lifetime of his first wife which is
a punishable offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal
Code and accordingly, the charge under Section 494 of the
Indian Penal Code is also proved against the petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt.
15. The learned trial court in Para-14 recorded that from
perusal of the evidences of P.Ws.-1, 2, 3, and 4 available on
record, it transpires that all the four prosecution witnesses have
stated that there was love affair between the Informant and the
petitioner before their marriage and both solemnized marriage
in a temple at Muradabad. Although none of the witnesses have
stated about the date, month or year of their marriage, but the
same is not expected from them as all the four witnesses are
illiterate and uneducated. The prosecution has not produced
any documentary evidence related to the marriage. From
perusal of the record, it transpires that one agreement and one
photograph of the petitioner and the Informant is available on
record. The agreement contains the signatures of Rohit Kewat,
Tilli Kumari, Golo Kewat and Prayag Kewat and it also
contains the signatures of other witnesses wherein it was
decided that the petitioner will treat the Informant as his wife
with full dignity and honour and will provide maintenance. It
was also decided in the said agreement that the petitioner will
give all the rights to her and her expecting child and on
violation in compliance of the promise, the petitioner shall be
held responsible. With consent of the petitioner, it was also
provided in the agreement that the petitioner will take the
Informant to his house and will bear all the responsibilities of
her. The agreement was accepted by both the parties with their
own volitions. From perusal of the agreement, it is established
that the Informant is a married wife of the petitioner and since
the petitioner demanded dowry from the Informant and on
non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, he drove out her from
the house, the petitioner has committed cruelty to the Informant
in terms of the provision under Section 498(A) of the Indian
Penal Code and accordingly, the charge under Section 498(A) of
the Indian Penal Code was also held to be proved against the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
16. The learned trial court summarized its findings in Para-15
and recorded that after perusal of the record, hearing the
learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the evidences of
the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the prosecution has
been successful to establish the charges under Sections 498(A),
494 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The
learned trial court further recorded that although the
Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, but the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully establishes that the
petitioner solemnized second marriage with the Informant
during the lifetime of his first wife and after the marriage, the
petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/- from the Informant as dowry
and on non-fulfillment of the same, he drove out her from the
house. Although the prosecution witnesses have not stated the
date of marriage between the petitioner and the Informant, but
the other evidences available on record prove that the marriage
was solemnized between the petitioner and the Informant and
out of the wedlock, the Informant has become the mother of a
daughter. A panchayati was also held in the village in
connection with the petitioner and the Informant wherein an
agreement was also prepared. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is established that the Informant is the married
wife of the petitioner and the charges under Sections 323, 494
and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code are proved against the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court
convicted the petitioner under Sections 323, 494 and 498(A) of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly.
17. The learned appellate court also considered the evidences
available on record and the arguments of the parties and, with
regard to the charge under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code,
recorded its findings in Para-11 of its Judgment which read as
under:
"11. The root of the marital discord appears to be second
marriage of the appellant/accused to the Informant. It is the
consistent case of the prosecution that appellant performed
marriage with the prosecutrix by concealing his first marriage
with one Sangita Devi. Both informant and the appellant are
residents of the same village in different tolas. The mother of the
informant has stated in Para-14 that there were 10-12 houses in
between the house of informant and the accused. In these
circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the informant was
completely unaware about the first marriage of the accused.
The matter for consideration is whether the appellant /
accused is guilty for the offence u/s 494 I.P.C. In order to
attract the provision of this section it is necessary that the
ceremony required by personal law of parties had been
performed in both the marriages. It has come in the evidence of
the prosecutrix that the Saptpadi and Sindur ritual was
performed.
The only point that needs to be addressed is that whether
the prosecutrix was the "person aggrieved" within the meaning
of section 198 of the Cr.P.C. to prosecute her husband for the
second marriage with herself.
As discussed above, the prosecutrix being fully cognizant
of the fact performed second marriage with the appellant. It has
been held in A. Subhas Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2011
(7) SCC 616 that the wife of a second marriage contracted
during the validity of the first marriage of the husband would
be a "person aggrieved" under Section 198(1)(C) of the Cr.P.C.
The fact of the second marriage has been consistently
established to prove the charge u/s 494 of the I.P.C."
18. The learned appellate court upheld the conviction of the
petitioner under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and
reduced the quantum of the sentence to Simple Imprisonment
for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of
fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further one month
and dismissed the criminal appeal. However, the learned
appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of the
petitioner under Sections 498(A) and 323 of Indian Penal Code.
19. This Court finds that P.W.-1 is the Informant of the case
who has deposed that she had married with the petitioner three
years ago and before the marriage, there was love affair
between them. She further deposed that she had voluntarily
gone to Muradabad and her marriage with the petitioner was
solemnized in Shiv Mandir. Thereafter, the marital life was
resumed and from Muradabad, they went to Delhi. In the
meantime, her mother-in-law came to Delhi and on her
persuasion, she came and started living in her matrimonial
house. Initially she was treated well, but soon after 2-3 days of
her stay in matrimonial house, her in-laws started subjecting
her to cruelty for dowry. When she came to her matrimonial
house, she came to know that the petitioner was a married
person. She further deposed that the dowry demand was made
by her in-laws and she was assaulted and ousted from her
matrimonial house and at that time, she was pregnant and
therefore, she came to her parental house. Thereafter, a
panchayati was convened in the village and then she returned
to her matrimonial house, but her in-laws resumed harassment
after 2-4 days and thereafter, she returned to her parental
house. In the meantime, in January, 2007, she was blessed with
a daughter and then the petitioner came and took her back to
her matrimonial house, but her in-laws again started assaulting
her. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was not
literate, but she can sign her name. She further stated that she
was not aware of the first marriage of the petitioner. She further
admitted that she cannot give the date of the incident. To a
court question, she deposed that Saptpadi and Sindur ritual was
performed. She further admitted that her house was in Kewat
Tola, whereas the house of the petitioner was at Hosir. This
Court finds that the Informant has fully supported the
prosecution case as stated in her Complaint.
20. This Court further finds that P.Ws. -2, 3 and 4 have
corroborated the evidence of the Informant with regard to the
marriage of the petitioner with the Informant and P.Ws. -3 and
4 have also corroborated evidence of the Informant with regard
to the first marriage of the petitioner with Sangita Devi. This
Court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved that
the petitioner solemnized second marriage with the Informant
during subsistence and validity of his first marriage with
Sangita Devi, the first wife and all the essential ingredients for
constituting the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal
Code against the petitioner are satisfied in the case.
21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have
carefully scrutinized the evidences available on the records of
the case and have recorded concurrent findings of facts with
regard to conviction of the petitioner under Section 494 of
Indian Penal Code. This Court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the conviction of the petitioner under Section 494
of Indian Penal Code calling for any interference under
revisional jurisdiction.
22. This Court further finds that considering the age and
absence of antecedent of the petitioner and also the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, the learned appellate court has
already taken a lenient view in favour of the petitioner and has
reduced the quantum of sentence to Simple Imprisonment for
one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default in payment of
fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further one month. In
view of these facts, this Court is also not inclined to interfere
with the quantum of the sentence passed against the petitioner
by the learned appellate court.
23. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence of the
petitioner under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code passed by
the learned appellate court is affirmed and this criminal
revision petition is hereby dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
25. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
26. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as
not pressed.
27. Let the Lower Court Records be immediately sent back to
the court concerned.
28. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned
court below through "FAX/Email".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/
